The Quran rejects the swoon theory (3:55) and says Jesus was saved by the Power
of God and replaced with another in his likeness (4:157). According to
Gnostic doctrine, Simon
took on Jesus’ form and died in his place, while Jesus stood laughing. Some
believed Jesus’ phantom body was only crucified, and he wasn’t flesh. The
Marcionites believed Jesus never “rose from the dead” because spiritual bodies
do not resurrect (Luke 20:36). Paul, the founder of Christianity, denied the
physical resurrection.

The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1
Corinthians 15, where Paul compares thegeneral resurrection to that of Jesus and thus implies his conception of
the latter. The risen Jesus "became a ... Spirit" (v. 45). His was a
spiritual, not a natural body (v. 44) and did not have flesh, since such is
entirely unsuited to immortality (v. 50). (Robert Price, The Resurrection,
[1]

The ultra-conservatives keep insisting on a “physical” resurrection of Jesus.
Paul, whose work pre-dates the first Gospel, insists on the exact opposite. His
fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians could not possibly be clearer. I invite you
to read to reread that passage for yourself. This passage is almost pure
Platonism. Paul knows only a spiritual resurrection. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 174)

That the original Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection is hinted at
in many strange features of the Gospel accounts of the appearances of Jesus after
death, which may be survivals of an original mystical tradition later corrupted
by the growing legend of a bodily resurrection, such as a Jesus that they do
not recognize, or who vanishes into thin air.[24] But more importantly, it is
also suggested by the letters of Paul, our earliest source of information on
any of the details of the original Christian beliefs. For Paul never mentions
or quotes any of the Gospels, so it seems clear that they were not written in
his lifetime. This is supported by internal evidence that suggests all the
Gospels were written around or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., well after Paul's last
surviving letter, which was written around the year 58.[25]

Yet Paul never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh. He never
mentions empty tombs, physical appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into
heaven afterward (i.e. when Paul mentions the ascension, he never ties it to
appearances in this way, and never distinguishes it from the resurrection event
itself).
[2]

Jesus was placed on the cross and did not die; he survived the crucifixion. The
evidence proves Jesus was deliberately drugged to make him appear dead (John
19:30), so the Roman soldiers wouldn’t break his legs to expedite his death. The
Jews already knew Jesus was accursed (Deu 21:23), executed on false charges
(Luke 23:22). The body had to be removed before the Sabbath so the land won’t
be defiled.

Historical
Errors in the Gospels:

Now is it not strange that the crucifixion should take place during the
Passover? Among the Jews, this was a most sacred occasion. For them to crucify
anyone at this time, they would have to break at least seven of their religious
laws. Why then did they profane it with murder? (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p.
345)

According to the Gospels, the Jews
did not mind committing murder during the Passover, but they were greatly
worried about profaning their Sabbath, and so they requested Pilate to have the
legs of the three broken that they may die sooner. (ibid, p. 351)

The story of Barabbas being freed in exchange for Jesus is pure fiction. Two
Gospels describe a Roman custom of freeing a prisoner during Passover festival,
but no such policy ever existed on the part of the Romans. A Roman procurator,
especially someone as ruthless as Pilate, would likewise never consent to the
pressure of a mob.
[1]

Pontius Pilate, as he is depicted in the Gospels, appears to be a decent person
who consents only reluctantly to the crucifixion of Jesus. History paints a
different picture of him. He was a procurator of Judea
from A.D. 26 to 36, and he was a cruel and corrupt man. Why is there no
criticism of him in the Gospels?
[2]

The Pilate was bribed to keep Jesus alive, that’s why he executed Jesus on the
Passover knowing he would survive the cross. It took several days to die from
crucifixion, he allowed Jesus to be drugged and taken down from the cross.
Apparently, the Jews knew it takes several days, so why did they want Jesus
crucified on the Passover knowing he would survive? The Sabbath begins at
evening, and the first day of the week is Sunday.

When Jesus expired after drinking the vinegar, the Pilate gave permission to
Joseph to remove the body and wrap in healing spices.

Interestingly, there is also the possibility that Pilate was bribed. This
would account for the crucifiction taking place at the Garden of Gethsemane
(private land), and for the body being taken down so quickly. In short
the evidence is overwhelming that the Cruci- fixion was instead a Cruci-
fiction.
[1]

Another explanation is provided by a strong tradition that Pilate was “got at”
with a sizable bribe amounting to the equivalent of 30,000. If what is
described in the Gospels is true, then it is obvious that Pilate did have a
vested interest in the drama enacted that day in Jerusalem…Finally, there is another
significant fact. In the calendars of the Saints of the Coptic Church, both in Egypt and in Ethiopia, Pilate and his wife
appear as “saints”. This could be possible only if we accept that Pilate,
knowing full well that his soldiers had made a wrong arrest, knowingly
condemned Judas in place of Jesus, and allowed the latter to escape. (Muhammad
Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam,
p. 37)

Let us quote the passage Luke 23:51-56

(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of
Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, and
begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and
laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was
laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women
also, which came with him from Galilee,
followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And
they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the
sabbath day according to the commandment. (Luke 23:51-56)

Nooneknows the exact date on which the crucifixion occurred. The
synoptic Gospels and the fourth Gospel locate it near the time of Passover. I
see no reason to doubt that. There is, however, too much agenda in both the
synoptic’s attempt to identify the Last Supper with the Passover feast, and the
fourth Gospel’s attempt to identify the day of crucifixion with the day on
which the Paschal Lamb was slain, for me to take either assertion literally.

How long was Jesus on the cross before he died? I do not think anyone knows.
Remember, those who might have noticed and relayed that information had all
forsaken him and fled. The appearance of Joseph of Arimathea, the darkness over
the land, the split in the temple veil, the ecstatic cry of faith from the
centurion—all were elements of the developing legend. The hasty burial before
the Sabbath was but a part of the burial legend. Thus no one knows how long
Jesus lived on the cross, how he died, when he was taken down, or where he was
buried, “for they all forsook him and fled”. That means there was no
first-day-of-the-week visit to the tomb by the women to anoint him, since there
was no tomb and no sense of when he died or of where he was buried. (John
Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or
Reality, p. 241)

The apostles were not eye-witnesses to the crucifixion (Mark
14:50). The Bible says “they all forsook him and fled”.

It seems very likely that none of Jesus' disciples were witnesses to the events
following his arrest. [a] This is firmly supported by the fact
that it is in these episodes that the evangelists had to rely on Old Testament passages to reconstruct the
events as they thought it might have happened during the crucifixion.
[1]

It is important that one examines closely extra-biblical sources
regarding Palestine and Rome of biblical times in order to make sense
of what took place and ultimately understand what really led to the development
of Xianity as we have come to know it. It cannot be said too often that the
Gospels are not reliable as historical documents. They are riddled with
inconsistencies, forgeries and historical inaccuracies and are not even
eyewitness accounts.
[2]

“There is hardly any record of his code of behavior. The books in the New
Testament do not even contain eye-witness accounts of his sayings and actions.
They were written by people who derived their knowledge second-hand. These
records are not comprehensive. Everything which Jesus said and did which has
not been recorded has been lost forever”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 195)

Jesus survived the cross so Christians are not saved. Now if Christians
reject the Quranic version, they must accept the Biblical evidence that Jesus
was kept alive, only to be resusciated on the third day before sunrise. The
Gospels say the stone was “rolled away” and the tomb was empty. Obviously,
Jesus did not stagger out by himself; his body was taken by the Essenes who
restored him back to life.

The scholar Ahmed Deedat answers the question: Who
Moved the Stone?But it doesn’t
matter who moved the stone, the crucifixion was a conspiracy to keep Jesus
alive. The Essenes were the followers of Jesus:

The name of the Essenes had been changed
previously from Hassidim to Essenes. Philo calls them Therapeutae, and Eusebins
says the Therapentae were Christians. [1]

The Essenes followed Jesus after John was beheaded, they were strict
adherents to the Law (Matt 5:17-20) which solved the problem of lawlessness. They
supported Jesus when he favored the Jewish Law and denounced Pharisaism.

The man dressed in white at the tomb was Essene.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man
dressed in a whiterobesitting on the right side, and they
were alarmed. (Mark 16:5)

And they despise wealth, and do not turn away from sharing their goods with
those that are destitute. No one amongst them, however, enjoys a greater amount
of riches than another. For a regulation with them is, that an individual
coming forward to join the sect must sell his possessions, and present the
price of them to the community. And on receiving the money, the head of the
order distributes it to all according to their necessities. Thus there is no
one among them in distress. And they do not use oil, regarding it as a
defilement to be anointed. And there are appointed overseers, who take care of
all things that belong to them in common, and they all appear always in white clothing.
(Hippolytus of Rome,
Tenets of the Essene,[1]

The solution runs - Paul never mentions the gospel
stories because the people he was writing to were so familiar with them that
they went without saying. I think this is a silly solution. Have you ever heard
a preacher decide not to mention a story about Jesus because his audience were
familiar with it? 1 Corinthians 15 was written because the Corinthians doubted
the Resurrection. Were the people who doubted the Resurrection also the people
who knew the gospel stories off by heart? In Galatians 1:6-9, Paul chides the
Galatians for following different gospels. Were the people who followed
different gospels also the people who knew the gospel stories off by heart?

Nobody has ever even provided any evidence that
the Romans and Colossians and Galatians etc were so familiar with the Gospel
stories that Paul could take knowledge of them for granted. Indeed, the third
Bishop of Rome
, Clement, shows a very poor knowledge of the Gospel stories when he wrote 1
Clement.

If stories need not be mentioned because audiences
are already familiar with them, why does Paul mention so many stories from the
Old Testament? His audience must have already been familiar with them as, as
for example in 1 Corinthians 10, he mentions many details from Old Testament
stories in passing, expecting his audience to pick up the references. He does
not allow the fact that his audience knew the stories to stop him mentioning
them. Why does he allow the 'fact' that his audience knew the Gospel stories to
stop him mentioning them?
[1]

The Gospels have no chain of transmission because Paul did not know the
Gospel stories. This means the Gospel story did not exist in 50-64 CE when Paul
wrote his epistles. It is clear that Paul did not know the
Historical Jesus and
regarded him as mythological.

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we
know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical
Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he
founded at Ephesus
a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed
some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who
preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline
Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual
Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps
James), most of what He taught is lost forever.
[2]

Albert Schweitzer, in his book Paul
and His Interpreters, says that “Paul never appealed to the sayings and
commands of the Master”.Where did the
sayings come from? Paul never mentions the Gospels, where did the stories come
from? My argument does not “destroy Islam” because Muslims only believe the Quranic
stories about Jesus: He was a Prophet who preached Islam, he was never
crucified for the “sins of mankind” (4:157) and he never claimed divinity.

The “crucifixion” story was invented during oral tradition:

The story
of Judas is clearly an urban legend and the stories surrounding the crucifixion
are also clearly urban legends and
composites of various myths, tales and stories that were circulating in
churches in later years when the gospels were actually composed. [1]

By the time Mark wrote his Gospel, however (ca. 70 C.E.), a tradition about how
Jesus was buried began to evolve. No part of Jesus’ life was exempt from
legendary accretions. In its earliest Gospel version, this burial tradition
starred a man named Josephus of Arimathea. He was described in Mark’s text as
“a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God” (15:43). Prior to this mention in
Mark’s story, Joseph or Arimathea had not, to our knowledge, ever achieved
notice in Christian writing. Yet once he made this brief cameo appearance as a
bit player in the critical week of Jesus’ life, he immediately entered the
developing Christian mythology. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality, p. 222)

The writer Steve Carr analyses the passage 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

These famous words are the earliest words we have
describing the Resurrection. Let me pick this apart into tiny pieces. Notice
that this evidence never mentions the time or place of any of these
appearances. The most basic documentation is missing.

The Gospels are adamant that Jesus was buried in a
tomb near or in Jerusalem , that there was a guard at a tomb, that women
visited the tomb early, that there were earthquakes, angels, burial shrouds
left behind , that Jesus was touched and ate bread etc etc.

Paul, in a letter saying what was of first importanceto people
who doubted that the resurrection had happened, could not be bothered to
mention any of the proofs that the Gospels , 20 or 30 years later, would give.
Perhaps he didn't know of them. Perhaps he didn't think that the Gospel stories
were important.

In turn the Gospel writers leave
out such convincing evidences as an appearance to 500 brethren or an appearance
to James, the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. The appearances described by Paul
clash head-on with the appearances in the Gospels. Remember that Jesus could
not have appeared to the 'twelve' as Paul said, as Judas was dead.
[1]

Justin Martyr debated a Jew named Trypho who claimed Jesus’
body was stolen.

"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of
Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah,
exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from
the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your
nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed;
yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the
dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout
all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one
Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him
by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and
now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to
heaven.
[2]

In reality, the Essenes took Jesus’ body before sunrise and
“restored him to life”.

At best, neither the story of an
accusation of theft nor that of guards is more likely to be true than the
other. But even if we assume a guard, the gospel also depicts these
guards as accepting a bribe to lie about theft, and thus it follows that the
guards would be just as likely to accept a bribe to allow Jesus to escape.
Indeed, they would probably have no qualms about accepting both bribes, being
twice the richer for it. And since Jesus was placed in the tomb of his rich and
influential supporter, Joseph of Arimathea, there is an irrefutable possibility
of bribery…

First of all, the Greek says the Jews only tell Pilate "order the tomb to
be secured" (keleuson oun asphalisthênai ton taphon, Matt. 27:64),
which permits but does not entail providing a guard, for it could also mean
only allowing one to be set. Pilate responds "you have a guard" or
"have a guard" (echete koustôdian, 27.65), and the verb here
may be indicative or imperative: the former actually denies that he meant them
to take one of his men, and the latter only allows but does not entail this.
But then he tells them to make the tomb secure as they know how (i.e. he
does not give these orders to the guards, but the Jews), and then the Jews
themselves "secure the tomb with the guard" (êsphalisanto ton
taphon...meta tês koustôdias, 27.66), and they, not the guard, place
the seal (therefore it could not have been a Roman seal). In other words, the
passage as written does not entail sending a guard, but more likely means
allowing the Jews to arrange their own guard. They had temple guards of their
own, or could have simply appointed anyone to the task. As members of the city
council, that was their job.

This interpretation has further
support in Matthew: when legionaries or Pilate's men are meant, this author
usually says so (cf. Matt. 27.27, 27.54), and the word for "guard"
used by Pilate (koustôdia) does not mean an actual person (that would be
koustos) but the general idea of "a guarding." So when Matthew
writes Pilate as saying "have a guard" he means "set a
watch," not "take some guards." Moreover, Matthew 28:11-15
reports that these guards go immediately to the Jews after the discovery of a
missing body, not to Pilate or any superior officer, yet this would be even
stranger behavior for a Roman soldier than accepting bribes. That the Jews
promise to keep Pilate from punishing them offers no proof that they were
Roman, since the governor could punish anyone tasked with failing to prevent a
theft, and it would be strange for Jews to claim influence over a Roman
military court unless legionaries, who formed the jury, could be bribed after
all. For Roman legionaries were citizens and thus had the right to a trial, and
in the military trial juries were comprised of fellow legionaries--who, by the
way, would have no interest in condemning their comrades to death for what was
nothing more than a disgrace to mere Jews, and there was no death penalty for
being overpowered while standing watch anyway. The guards, after all, did not
abondon their watch but were overcome by superior force--if Pilate would not
have believed the supernatural truth, a suitable lie about armed men would have
sufficed. But even this is moot. Whether legionary or auxiliary, Roman or Jew,
we have ample grounds for believing a bribery possible. (Read the entire
article here)

Basically, we have three choices: (1) The Roman guards were
bribed on the empty tomb. (2) The guards at the tomb were Jews. (3) There were
no guards at the tomb, it’s all legend.

There is reliable evidence to prove Jesus was drugged to keep him alive.

Hugh Schonfield, in his The Passover Plot, suggests that Jesus was
drugged—sedated on the cross such that he appeared dead but could be revived
later, after he had been taken down. This is by no means such a wild idea, and
it has received a sympathetic hearing. For example, in a television program on
the crucifixion broadcast by the BBC in 2004 called Did Jesus Die?
Elaine Pagels referred to Schonfield's book, which, she noted, suggested that
Jesus "had been sedated on the cross; that he was removed quite early and
therefore could well have survived." And, she concluded, "that's
certainly a possibility."
[1]

Jesus's political pretensions were cut short at a crucial stage in his career
when he entered Jerusalem in preparation for a coup against the Herodians, only
to be betrayed by one of his own followers. Jesus was arrested and crucified,
but to the dismay of the Roman/Herodian authorities, Jesus survived the
crucifixion (possibly with the connivance of the commander of the Roman troops
handling the crucifixion, who later became a Christian bishop in Cappodocia),
and after his resuscitation was seen leaving the tomb-chamber assisted by two
other Nazarenes. As the startling news of Jesus's resuscitation spread, his
brother Jamesannounced that Jesus had been miraculously
resurrected and that he had been personally deputized by Jesus to lead the
Nazarenes as their "bishop of bishops" until Jesus's return (which
was supposed to take place within a single generation of his original
ministry). [2]

The Church father Irenaeus said Jesus was crucified at age
fifty!

But, besides this, those very Jews
who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the
same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced
to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou
art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such
language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty,
without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this
latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably
be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to
convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far
beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near
His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the
public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He
was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty
years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were
mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times
of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they
beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood.
(Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22,
online
Source)

"The Thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in
his 30th year: He did NOT suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but
was MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OLD WHEN HE
DIED." –
[1]

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this
extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which
our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher.
[2]

Logically, if Jesus
was crucified at age fifty (33 A.D), this means he was born in 20 BCE.

1. The Pilate’s wife had a dream that Jesus should be kept alive.

While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't
have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great
deal today in a dream because of him." (Matthew 27:19)

2. The Pilate expressed doubt that Jesus was dead.

And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the
centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. (Mark 14:44)

3. Pilate gave permission to Joseph to remove the body (he
was respected by the Romans).

All that remained then was for Jesus to be taken down from the cross,
apparently lifeless but in reality unconscious, and taken to private tomb where
medicines could be used to revive him. He would then be whisked away from the
scene. And this is precisely what is described in the Gospels: Luke (23:53) and
Mark (15:46) report that Jesus was placed in a new tomb nearby. Matthew (27:6)
adds that the tomb was owned by the wealthy and influential Joseph of
Arimathea. John (19:41-42), who generally gives us so many extra details, adds
that there was a garden around this tomb, implying that the grounds were
privately owned, perhaps also by Joseph of Arimathea.

John also stresses that Jesus was
taken down quickly and put in this new tomb. Then, in a very curious addition,
he reports that Joseph of Arimathea and a colleague, Nicodemus, visited the
tomb during the night and brought with them a very large amount of
spices: myrrh and aloes (John 19:39). These, it is true, could be used simply
as a perfume, but there could be another equally plausible explanation. Both
substances have a medicinal use—most notably, myrrh has been used as an aid to
stop bleeding. Neither drug is known to have a role in embalming dead bodies.
Mark (16:1) and Luke (23:56) touch obliquely on this theme as well, adding to
their story of the tomb the women—Mary Magdalene and Mary, "mother of
James”—brought spices and ointments with them when they came to the tomb after
the Sabbath had ended. (Michael Baigent, Could
Jesus Have Survived the Crucifixion?[1]

The Pilate knew it takes several days to die from
crucifixion. Jesus merely expired in three hours!

Josephus tells a story of the Romans crucifying people along the walls of Jerusalem. He also says
that the Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in
different positions. In Roman-style crucifixion, the victim took days to die slowly from suffocation — caused by the
victim's blood-supply slowly draining away, to a quantity insufficient to
supply the required oxygen to vital organs. The dead body was left up for vultures
and other birds to consume.
[2]

Crucifixion was a slow death. It usually
lasted several days. Death followed
from exhaustion, inability to respire

property as a result
of being in an upright position or attacks by
wild animals. Why did Jesus, who was a fit and healthy man used to
walking the countryside for long distances, die so quickly in only a matter of
a few hours?
[3]

Crucifixion was resorted to in
order to provide a cruel and lingering punishment, the victim sometimes not dying for several days. There was
considerable sentiment against crucifixion in Jerusalem, and there existed a society of
Jewish women who always sent a representative to crucifixions for the purpose
of offering drugged wine to the victim in order to lessen his suffering. But
when Jesus tasted this narcotized wine, as thirsty as he was, he refused to
drink it.
[4]

Jesus was drugged to keep him alive; he fell unconscious before the Roman
soldiers could break his legs.

Within the canonical texts certain clues may be
found that shows that the biblical crucifixion was a less then transparent
affair. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus, hanging on the cross, says that he thirsts
and is given a sponge allegedly soaked in vinegar. Tradition has it that this
act was an act of derision, but in actuality vinegar - or soured wine - was a
temporary stimulant with effects similar to smelling salts. It was often used
to resuscitate exhausted galley slaves. For an exhausted man, a sniff or taste
of vinegar would induce a restorative, rejuvenating effect. Surprisingly, in
Jesus' case the effect is exactly the opposite. As soon as he tastes or inhales
the sponge he expires. This is physiologically inexplicable, if indeed it was
vinegar. On the other hand if it were a sponge soaked in a soporific drug - a
mixture of opium and/or belladonna, for instance, commonly used in Palestine at that time -
unconsciousness would occur, giving the impression of sudden death.[1]

There is a curious incident recorded in the Gospels that may be
explained by this hypothesis: while on the cross, Jesus complained that he was
thirsty. A sponge soaked in vinegar was placed on the end of a long reed and
held up to him. But far from reviving Jesus, the drink from this sponge
apparently caused him to die. This is a curious reaction and suggests that the
sponge was soaked not in vinegar, a substance that would have revived Jesus,
but rather in something that would have caused him to lose consciousness—some
sort of drug, for example. And there was just this type of drug available in
the Middle East.

It was known that a sponge soaked in a mixture of opium and other compounds
such as belladonna and hashish served as a good anesthetic. Such sponges would
be soaked in the mixture, then dried for storage or transport. When it was
necessary to induce unconsciousness—for surgery, for example—the sponge would
be soaked in water to activate the drugs and then placed over the nose and
mouth of the subject, who would promptly lose consciousness. Given the
description of the events on the cross and the rapid apparent "death"
of Jesus, it is a plausible suggestion that this use of a drugged sponge was
the cause. No matter how carefully a "staged" crucifixion might have
been carried out (one intended for Jesus to survive), there was no way to
anticipate the effect that shock might have had upon him. Crucifixion was,
after all, a traumatic experience, both physically and mentally. To be rendered
unconscious would reduce the effect of the trauma and thus increase the chance
of survival, so the drug would have been a further benefit in that regard too.
(Michael Baigent, Could Jesus Have
Survived the Crucifixion?[2]

According to John, Jesus from the cross complains of thirst. In reply, he
is given a sponge allegedly soaked in vinegar. Rather than another act of
cruelty, vinegar -- or soured wine -- is a temporary stimulant with the effects
similar to smelling salts. As such, it was often used to resuscitate
flagging slaves on galleys. For a wounded and exhausted man a sniff or
taste of vinegar produces a restorative effect, a momentary surge of
energy. And yet in Jesus' case, his reaction is to utter his last words
and "give up the ghost", all of which is physiologically
inexplicable.

On the other hand, his reaction would
have been entirely consistent with a sponge soaked in something other than
vinegar, such as belladonna or a soporific drug. Such drugs were common
in the Middle East at the time, and would have
constituted a stratagem designed to produce a semblance of death, and in the
process save Jesus' life…

Perhaps the vinegar was not
vinegar, but a drug to cause Jesus to appear dead. Concocted by an Essene
herbalist-physician, the drug would be sufficiently powerful to induce almost
total paralysis -- and in particular, near extinction of respiration and
heartbeat. With Jesus apparently dead, there would be no reason to break
his legs (an act which might have been imminent in order to allow the corpse to
be taken down before Passover Sabbath, as required by Jewish Law).
Simultaneously, one of Jesus' friends in high places could approach the
authorities for permission to remove the body for burial to a nearby, spacious
tomb (where in the coolness and privacy, hidden Essene physicians, armed with
the appropriate antidote, could treat and revive their patient).[3]

The blood from Jesus’ side was a sign of life

There are some further points that are striking: John's Gospel mentions that a
spear was thrust into Jesus' side and that blood came out. Taken at face value,
we can conclude two things from this observation: first, that the spear was not
thrust into the brain or heart and so was not necessarily immediately
life-threatening. And second, that the flow of blood would seem to indicate
that Jesus was still alive.

All that remained then was for Jesus to be taken down from the cross,
apparently lifeless but in reality unconscious, and taken to private tomb where
medicines could be used to revive him.
[1]

The crucifixion took place on private ground, and the
witnesses were far away.

There is also the consistent agreement of modern scholars that the Crucifiction
was more likely held at the Garden
of Gethsemane -- which
would leave considerable room for a mock crucifixion, a skillfully
stage-managed ritual. Only a few eyewitnesses would have been immediately
present, with the general populace constrained to witness from a distance, the
latter fact confirmed by the Synoptic Gospels. [2]It is also curious that Jesus just happens to have been crucified next
to a garden and a tomb, the latter at least owned by Joseph of Arimathea. This
is all rather convenient to say the least. Could it be that the crucifixion
itself was private? Perhaps in order to control witnesses to what was
occurring? Luke (23:49) informs us that the crowds watching were standing at a
distance. Perhaps they were kept at a distance? In fact, the
description of the events of Golgotha suggests that the site of the crucifixion
was actually in the Kidron valley, where there are many rock-cut tombs to this
day and where is also located the Garden of Gethsemane, which may well have
been the private garden involved and one with which Jesus was familiar.
[3]

It’s obvious Joseph knew Jesus was alive, so he anointed Jesus’ body with healing spices. Jesus was revived
before sunrise on the first day of
the week.

John also stresses that Jesus was taken down quickly and put in this new
tomb. Then, in a very curious addition, he reports that Joseph of Arimathea and
a colleague, Nicodemus, visited the tomb during the night and brought
with them a very large amount of spices: myrrh and aloes (John 19:39). These,
it is true, could be used simply as a perfume, but there could be another
equally plausible explanation. Both substances have a medicinal use—most
notably, myrrh has been used as an aid to stop bleeding. Neither drug is known
to have a role in embalming dead bodies. Mark (16:1) and Luke (23:56) touch
obliquely on this theme as well, adding to their story of the tomb the
women—Mary Magdalene and Mary, "mother of James”—brought spices and
ointments with them when they came to the tomb after the Sabbath had ended.
[4]